High levels of testosterone rob one of ones hair. If Pete was able to dunk a basketball, I would pledge that a large part of that was due to his enhancements. Look at pictures of him when he was around 13. Stick legs.

Later on, he went to the longer pant that we now all use, and I swore he used those pants to hide the orangutang legs that he had "developed".

I think Federer's enhancements were more in the way of stamina and quickness. Pete went for power.

High levels of testosterone rob one of ones hair. If Pete was able to dunk a basketball, I would pledge that a large part of that was due to his enhancements. Look at pictures of him when he was around 13. Stick legs.

Later on, he went to the longer pant that we now all use, and I swore he used those pants to hide the orangutang legs that he had "developed".

I think Federer's enhancements were more in the way of stamina and quickness. Pete went for power.

Click to expand...

You don't believe in lifting weights and getting stronger, do you? By the way, Pete could dunk a tennis ball, not a basketball which would require a higher vertical jump.

Nonsense. Nobody moves or has ever moved on a tennis court with the quickness and anticipation of Federer. It's not even close. His first movement to the ball is lightning quick and his footwork his unparalleled.

And I've watched a lot of and appreciate Sampras. You're a fanboy without any objectivity.

I am not sure what there is to compare really. Pete was a beast, an absolute animal. Federer is more graceful and has better stamina. What Pete has over Fed in sheer explosiveness Fed more than makes up for with amazing footwork and anticipation. Totally different types of players in my opinion. Also depends a lot on what one values in an athlete. Obviously these 2 being particularly gifted.

I'm pretty sure that's better than half the stuff in the Sampras video. And it's pretty sad if you're using the ability to jump high as the sole comparison for athleticism.

Click to expand...

Well I think Fed is every bit the athlete that Pete was just in different ways but your example isn't any where near the level that was displayed in the previously posted video. I do agree that jumping high as the only basis for comparison is laughable. Anticipation and footwork are key areas where Fed has an edge over Pete.

Well I think Fed is every bit the athlete that Pete was just in different ways but your example isn't any where near the level that was displayed in the previously posted video. I do agree that jumping high as the only basis for comparison is laughable. Anticipation and footwork are key areas where Fed has an edge over Pete.

Click to expand...

Of course there was several dunks in the Sampras version that were better, it's just that that dunk was quite a bit better than some of the dunks in the Sampras video.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.

Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.

But then again, this is TW. I shouldn't be surprised.

Click to expand...

Well, my apologies. I guess the smiley face didn't do much there.

I thought the baby on your avatar was so cute that I sort of made the connection between the baby and your inner ... that.

But seriously, with Nadal being there, you ought to know that the slam count alone doesn't make one a better tennis player than the other, especially when it comes to head to head.

I'm not saying that Federer would beat Sampras 1 on 1 in a tennis match.
I'm saying that overall, Federer is the better and more accomplished tennis player.
There is a difference between the two.

Click to expand...

I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.

I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.

Click to expand...

Federer: 868–194 (81.73% WR)
Sampras: 762–222 (77.43% WR)

It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.

It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.

Click to expand...

Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?

I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.

So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)

Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.

Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?

I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.

So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)

Click to expand...

In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.

Click to expand...

Athleticism cannot be defined by endurance alone.

Even when Agassi was at the height of his fitness and had arguably better endurance than most of the ATP pros today, Sampras could come out, even when he wasn't at his best, and defeat Agassi.

Sampras may have lacked endurance, but he had the cat-like burst of speed that is rarely seen even today.

OK, I agree overall that because player A has more slams than player B it doesn't mean that player would beat player B more often than vice versa, I mean that's kinda obvious, matches aren't decided on paper, they have to be played out.

However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.

Also as I said, Nadal beating Fed mostly at FO has no bearing on how a hypothetical match-up between Sampras and Fed would go, every match-up is unique and all we have to go regarding Fed and Sampras is one single match which is far too small of a sample and neither player was anywhere near his best on top of that (Fed was still years from his peak/prime while Sampras was years past it).

I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.

Click to expand...

Yes but what has Fed-Nadal H2H got to do with that? Personally I'm getting a bit tired from Sampras fans constantly using that particular match-up as *proof* that Sampras would also beat Fed in big matches more so than vice versa.

Nadal is a completely different player than Sampras so drawing parallels there requires simplifying things to a ridiculous degree i.e Nadal is a great player so him having a dominant H2H against Fed in slams automatically means Sampras would as well because he's also a great player.

However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.

Click to expand...

You are still not following the thread closely.

There is no disagreement over whether or not Fed is a more complete player or more accomplished than Sampras.

In the context of this thread which compares the athleticism of the two players, if someone says Federer is no doubt the better tennis player, I would be inclined to interpret that as a claim that Federer would have had a clear head-to-head advantage over Sampras.